Apple has updated the language of the end user license agreement for iBooks …

Apple updated iBooks Author to version 1.0.1 on Friday afternoon, the only change being an update to the software's controversial end user license agreement. The updated EULA now specifically only applies distribution restrictions to the interactive .ibooks format files generated by the app.

Some felt that the original EULA suggested any "works" created using iBooks Author could be given away without restriction, but if money was charged, it would have to be sold via the iBookstore:

If you charge a fee for any book or other work you generate using this software (a “Work”), you may only sell or distribute such Work through Apple (e.g., through the iBookstore) and such distribution will be subject to a separate agreement with Apple.

Naturally, many authors and would-be publishers were wary that Apple created a legal loophole to control where their content could be sold. We consulted several lawyers on the issue, who agreed that the wording was vague enough to allow such restriction, and might even be legal according to contract law. However, it was also possible that if Apple were to use the EULA to control sales of content outside the iBookstore the company could open itself up to an antitrust challenge in court.

The new EULA, however, specifically applies the iBookstore distribution limitation to the interactive e-book saved in .ibooks format. It is now clear that the content itself, including the text, images, or any custom code, can be distributed in other forms and formats without restriction. The updated EULA reads:

If you want to charge a fee for a work that includes files in the .ibooks format generated using iBooks Author, you may only sell or distribute such work through Apple, and such distribution will be subject to a separate agreement with Apple. This restriction does not apply to the content of such works when distributed in a form that does not include files in the .ibooks format.

The restriction is somewhat moot, however. Only iBooks 2.0 on the iPad can even read and display .ibooks files, so there's little advantage to trying to sell such e-books outside of the iBookstore. Still, authors and publishers can rest assured that Apple can't and won't try to lock down their content to its platform.

I would hardly call this restriction moot. While right now the iPad is the only software capable of displaying the .ibooks files, it is almost certain that this situation will change if the format catches on at all.

So is the "separate agreement" Apple is referring to the 70/30 split just like developers?

Most likely that's the gist of it, but I'm sure there's all sorts of other obligations and agreements sellers must adhere to if selling work through the store.

Gulielmus wrote:

"Oops, people noticed."

Doubtful. This clause was just a bit too vague, and you can be sure that if Apple had intended it to mean what everyone had assumed it meant before, Apple would have changed it exactly to that to avoid any confusion. The old assumptions would have been worse, but honestly not that unexpected from a company as control hungry as Apple.

Lawyers are expected to make certain things vague or over reaching within the law so that they can then later apply the wording to different situations they might not have anticipated (since every situation or case would be different in some manner).

@madogu right on thanks! I understand both sides of the coin, where apple is making this incredible piece of software available for free, but in turn destroying the epub3 standard. A composer has a a choice to make a deal with the devil and create an awesome ebook with iBook Author, but you give apple 30% (or whatever the specifics are on that) and you relinquish all control to Apple or you have a shitty epub3 ebook and give them nothing. Decisions decisions :)

@madogu right on thanks! I understand both sides of the coin, where apple is making this incredible piece of software available for free, but in turn destroying the epub3 standard. A composer has a a choice to make a deal with the devil and create an awesome ebook with iBook Author, but you give apple 30% (or whatever the specifics are on that) and you relinquish all control to Apple or you have a shitty epub3 ebook and give them nothing. Decisions decisions

What's "shitty" about ePub 3? It enables, AFAICT, all the functionality that Apple's proprietary extensions enable, but in an extensible, standards-based format.

...or you are perfectly free to do both using the various market places available. You can charge more for the more "capable" iBook one if you want as well to help offset the cut Apple takes.

On a side note I would love to see Apple reduce their cut for in app purchases at least and across the board ideally... and I am stock holder This could put pressure on competitors market places to reduce their cut as well and make them bleed more then Apple ever would.

I would hardly call this restriction moot. While right now the iPad is the only software capable of displaying the .ibooks files, it is almost certain that this situation will change if the format catches on at all.

No, this is precisely the same as the original, just in clearer language.

As before: "we give you the tool. If you make a file with it that you want to sell, you have to sell it through us. That's the deal for the use of our free tool."

Entirely reasonably. Don't want to abide by those terms? Don't use their free tool.

The restriction is somewhat moot, however. Only iBooks 2.0 on the iPad can even read and display .ibooks files, so there's little advantage to trying to sell such e-books outside of the iBookstore. Still, authors and publishers can rest assured that Apple can't and won't try to lock down their content to its platform.

Technically, an author could create their own website to sell the .ibook file (or eBay or Amazon Marketplace, etc) and after a user had purchased the file, they would load it into their iPad via iTunes.

Or, a more likely scenario, a university could mandate that students purchase the files via a university website run by the university bookstore to protect their cash cow and get around the iBookstore terms and conditions restricting cost and denying Apple their 30% cut.

I'm glad Apple has 'clarified' this, but I still don't like it (EULAs making claims over data files generated by a program are problematic). Furthermore, I still don't think they've really thought it through (i.e. it still isn't really clear to me exactly what I'd be agreeing to if I agreed to this, and I'm not sure it is clear to them either). The broad outline is clear, but once you get anywhere near an edge case it becomes very fuzzy.

Specifically, what is the 'iBooks format'? How does this 'format' differ from 'content'?

I thought the ibook format was mostly epub. If I renamed a file so it had an '.epub' suffix rather than an '.ibook' suffix, would it still be in 'iBooks format'? If I take an epub file and rename it so it has the '.ibook' suffix, is that in 'iBooks format'? Does it depend on whether I use Apple's extensions to epub? What about if I extend epub in a compatible way before renaming the file? What if I translate the ibook into a similarly extended epub format which uses slightly different keywords?

Do they really mean that once you save a work from iBooks Author as an 'iBook', any derivative works from that iBook can only be sold in the Apple Store?

I would hardly call this restriction moot. While right now the iPad is the only software capable of displaying the .ibooks files, it is almost certain that this situation will change if the format catches on at all.

No, this is precisely the same as the original, just in clearer language.

As before: "we give you the tool. If you make a file with it that you want to sell, you have to sell it through us. That's the deal for the use of our free tool."

Entirely reasonably. Don't want to abide by those terms? Don't use their free tool.

Even RMS would not consider this "reasonable" and he's the king of the viral licenses.

Or, a more likely scenario, a university could mandate that students purchase the files via a university website run by the university bookstore to protect their cash cow and get around the iBookstore terms and conditions restricting cost and denying Apple their 30% cut.

Except that the only way to have the files protected by DRM and usable on an iPad is to go through Apple. (Unless you're suggesting that they'd develop their own, entirely independent, DRM system and somehow manage to get the reader app for it approved). I can't see any university selling electronic textbooks that aren't locked down.

The one thing Apple hasn't covered, is the very real possibility that someone will develop a .ibooks to epub3 converter that would let these works be used on a proper standards-compliant reader. Right now, the only one that claims ePub3-compliance is Azardi, but we should be seeing some pop up for Android in the near future.

@madogu right on thanks! I understand both sides of the coin, where apple is making this incredible piece of software available for free, but in turn destroying the epub3 standard. A composer has a a choice to make a deal with the devil and create an awesome ebook with iBook Author, but you give apple 30% (or whatever the specifics are on that) and you relinquish all control to Apple or you have a shitty epub3 ebook and give them nothing. Decisions decisions

What's "shitty" about ePub 3? It enables, AFAICT, all the functionality that Apple's proprietary extensions enable, but in an extensible, standards-based format.

As I understood it after reading this, Apple is indeed doing something that to 99% could be implemented in ePub 3, but since Apple did it with microformats rather than JavaScript blobs:

"That’s the first reason we’re thrilled about the widget-microformat approach iBooks is taking — we can build to the spirit of the functionality, rather than just mimic the functionality. We can parse the intention of a microformat — it’s impossible to parse the intention of a chunk of JavaScript. We’re not forced to build an iBooks clone, which work would hold no attraction for us."

The restriction is somewhat moot, however. Only iBooks 2.0 on the iPad can even read and display .ibooks files, so there's little advantage to trying to sell such e-books outside of the iBookstore. Still, authors and publishers can rest assured that Apple can't and won't try to lock down their content to its platform.

Technically, an author could create their own website to sell the .ibook file (or eBay or Amazon Marketplace, etc) and after a user had purchased the file, they would load it into their iPad via iTunes.

Or, a more likely scenario, a university could mandate that students purchase the files via a university website run by the university bookstore to protect their cash cow and get around the iBookstore terms and conditions restricting cost and denying Apple their 30% cut.

I presume this is the sort of issue Apple was trying to prevent here.

It states clearly, that if you want to SELL the book on Apple's site, (iTunes U), that that file format will ONLY run in the iTunes U app. on the iPad and Apple will then take a cut of the sales price; just like an App. Those files will play interactively on iPad ONLY. (You can't open a music file and play the music in Text Edit or Numbers)The new EULA says you are welcome to publish your Content, minus the Apple-only interactive portions, and distribute anywhere/anyway you wish.Pretty plain speak.

I'm glad Apple has 'clarified' this, but I still don't like it (EULAs making claims over data files generated by a program are problematic). Furthermore, I still don't think they've really thought it through (i.e. it still isn't really clear to me exactly what I'd be agreeing to if I agreed to this, and I'm not sure it is clear to them either). The broad outline is clear, but once you get anywhere near an edge case it becomes very fuzzy.

Specifically, what is the 'iBooks format'? How does this 'format' differ from 'content'?

I thought the ibook format was mostly epub. If I renamed a file so it had an '.epub' suffix rather than an '.ibook' suffix, would it still be in 'iBooks format'? If I take an epub file and rename it so it has the '.ibook' suffix, is that in 'iBooks format'? Does it depend on whether I use Apple's extensions to epub? What about if I extend epub in a compatible way before renaming the file? What if I translate the ibook into a similarly extended epub format which uses slightly different keywords?

Do they really mean that once you save a work from iBooks Author as an 'iBook', any derivative works from that iBook can only be sold in the Apple Store?

Wow, Apple clarified it, and people are still tying themselves up in knots trying to come up with some interpretation under which Apple is trying to assert control over their content. Why would you want to give something the ".ibook" extension if it is not an iBook? Just to provoke Apple in some way?

I'll make a few IANAL predictions.

If something has the .epub suffix and runs in standard ebook readers, Apple won't care what you do with it.If you hack or clone iBook Author to output a file that internally uses Apple's proprietary iBook features and then try to sell the product somewhere else, you'll likely be hearing from Apple's lawyers, no matter what the suffix is.

@madogu right on thanks! I understand both sides of the coin, where apple is making this incredible piece of software available for free, but in turn destroying the epub3 standard. A composer has a a choice to make a deal with the devil and create an awesome ebook with iBook Author, but you give apple 30% (or whatever the specifics are on that) and you relinquish all control to Apple or you have a shitty epub3 ebook and give them nothing. Decisions decisions

Well, while publishers need to adopt a standard, and definitely many have, the world of textbooks is a messy one. Just about every publisher has their own format and own program required to use them. At our own college bookstore, no one knows if ebooks will work on the iPad, not even the company that sells the redeemable codes at the store.

As in, the company that sells the codes to the bookstore gets their books from various publishers, and the 3 or 4 publishers they get them from each use their own applications for the PC/Mac. Some of which have made iOS compatible versions, but which ones is unknown to the company's representatives you can reach by phone.

And that's just our school. I'm sure some are better, and some are possibly worse, but there are only a handful of textbook publishers out there anyway, and schools usually stick to the ones they have, but typically don't have much choice anyway.

I think that's the reason Apple is specifically marketing towards these textbook publishers right now, because it's nearly just as bad as when general publishers first started going digital. These publishers have had time to jump on whatever format they've wanted to, but all of them obviously haven't made the jump to some standard format for whatever number of reasons. Even if some of them have, many of them still require their own application to redeem/use/download/view/control them.

That's why I think there's some good to come out of this. Mainly, because those publishers aren't software developers. Their programs are typically crap or just poorly ported, or often require Internet access to view (although, the few I've seen now have download options for offline viewing although it has to be done manually and for each chapter). So, while I don't want Apple to "take over the world of textbook publishing", with the way they are restricting this to only the iPad version of iBooks, it doesn't appear they are trying to (at least not yet), and are just rather trying to standardize the world of textbooks specifically for the iPad.

Apple is just standardizing the control of eBooks for their popular tablet, which can be very beneficial to the student when every single publisher is attempting their own version of control. For good or bad, Apple is a master at control.

Template-based layout including special areas (gutter)Extended underliningAbility to control the size of each column and column gap in a multi-column layoutSomething equivalent to Adobe’s Regions and Exclusions.

(...)

Nor is Apple claiming this new format is ePub. They haven’t asserted proprietary new features or syntax for ePub the way, say, Netscape and Internet Explorer asserted proprietary new tags and features for HTML. The output of iBooks Author is no more intended to be an industry standard than are any other Apple-proprietary document formats — Pages, Numbers, Keynote, etc. This is Apple’s own e-book format, intended only to be displayed (played?) using Apple’s own software running on Apple’s own devices.

...or you are perfectly free to do both using the various market places available. You can charge more for the more "capable" iBook one if you want as well to help offset the cut Apple takes.

On a side note I would love to see Apple reduce their cut for in app purchases at least and across the board ideally... and I am stock holder This could put pressure on competitors market places to reduce their cut as well and make them bleed more then Apple ever would.

It would be pretty stupid of them to do that; what happens when developers start releasing apps that are bare bone shells, "but hey, if you want full functionality just unlock it through in app purchasing!"

Which many less scrupulous developers would do, since in app purchasing would have less of a fee to be paid to Apple. Which is why they made the in app purchase cut match the app purchase cut.

Have they changed the Itunes sales terms that were mentioned in the original article that said if you sold any of your works through the ibookstore they would be entitled to sell all your works? That was the biggest issue I saw with all of this concerning ibooks. Because you have to have that agreement in addition to this EULA to sell stuff in the ibookstore, so you really need to look at the combined effect of both agreements.

As I understood it after reading this, Apple is indeed doing something that to 99% could be implemented in ePub 3, but since Apple did it with microformats rather than JavaScript blobs:

Bjarnason explains the problems with this implementation, specifically that, "they could have done exactly the same thing, but done them in a standards-friendly manner. Instead, we have a format that is full of intentional incompatibilities with ePub3 – the format they extended – HTML, CSS, and javascript. These incompatibilities are non-trivial, both to implement and to circumvent."

ePub3 was built to be extended, it has specific built-in mechanisms to allow the creation of books and readers with novel functionality, along with fallback safeguards to ensure that a certain basic level of compatibility can be maintained. Apple deliberately broke this.

The greatest plague facing ebooks, both for producers and consumers, is the proliferation of multiple formats, and iBooks 2.0 just makes this worse. Amazon, of course, is just as bad - neither company has any interest in adopting a real standards-based approach which would allow customers to move between ecosystems, though Amazon does at least cover a wide range of hardware.

@madogu right on thanks! I understand both sides of the coin, where apple is making this incredible piece of software available for free, but in turn destroying the epub3 standard. A composer has a a choice to make a deal with the devil and create an awesome ebook with iBook Author, but you give apple 30% (or whatever the specifics are on that) and you relinquish all control to Apple or you have a shitty epub3 ebook and give them nothing. Decisions decisions

Actually, authors and publishers have to give about 50% and often more than 55% to bookstores for the paper editions, so 30% is a pretty generous split.

As far as "destroying" the epub3 format goes, well, the publishing app Apple is giving away for free is spif ally meant for books that are to be sold within Apple's iBooks app, so it has little to do with a freely distributed format. If authors and publishers want, they can also take that content to other programs and work on them there. It should be noted that Adobe's program for this purpose is also proprietary so Apple isn't doing anything that Adobe isn't, but they will be more successful at it..

This is almost a moot point as publishers have not stepped onto Apple's platform here, but jumped. Apparently, there is a great deal of interest in it, and they have found other solutions wanting. That's what really matters.

@madogu right on thanks! I understand both sides of the coin, where apple is making this incredible piece of software available for free, but in turn destroying the epub3 standard. A composer has a a choice to make a deal with the devil and create an awesome ebook with iBook Author, but you give apple 30% (or whatever the specifics are on that) and you relinquish all control to Apple or you have a shitty epub3 ebook and give them nothing. Decisions decisions

What's "shitty" about ePub 3? It enables, AFAICT, all the functionality that Apple's proprietary extensions enable, but in an extensible, standards-based format.

So you say. But it's interesting that it's been a failure so far, while publishers are eager to move to what Apple is doing.

As I understood it after reading this, Apple is indeed doing something that to 99% could be implemented in ePub 3, but since Apple did it with microformats rather than JavaScript blobs:

Bjarnason explains the problems with this implementation, specifically that, "they could have done exactly the same thing, but done them in a standards-friendly manner. Instead, we have a format that is full of intentional incompatibilities with ePub3 – the format they extended – HTML, CSS, and javascript. These incompatibilities are non-trivial, both to implement and to circumvent."

ePub3 was built to be extended, it has specific built-in mechanisms to allow the creation of books and readers with novel functionality, along with fallback safeguards to ensure that a certain basic level of compatibility can be maintained. Apple deliberately broke this.

The greatest plague facing ebooks, both for producers and consumers, is the proliferation of multiple formats, and iBooks 2.0 just makes this worse. Amazon, of course, is just as bad - neither company has any interest in adopting a real standards-based approach which would allow customers to move between ecosystems, though Amazon does at least cover a wide range of hardware.

But he's got his own political reason for asserting that. He want things to be done on a way that benefits him.

Apple is the first large company with a good distributation model that has bothered to see this through, which is why all the major text publishers have come on board. It's interesting that all the complaints about this aren't book publishers.

The restriction is somewhat moot, however. Only iBooks 2.0 on the iPad can even read and display .ibooks files, so there's little advantage to trying to sell such e-books outside of the iBookstore. Still, authors and publishers can rest assured that Apple can't and won't try to lock down their content to its platform.

Technically, an author could create their own website to sell the .ibook file (or eBay or Amazon Marketplace, etc) and after a user had purchased the file, they would load it into their iPad via iTunes.

Or, a more likely scenario, a university could mandate that students purchase the files via a university website run by the university bookstore to protect their cash cow and get around the iBookstore terms and conditions restricting cost and denying Apple their 30% cut.

I presume this is the sort of issue Apple was trying to prevent here.

It states clearly, that if you want to SELL the book on Apple's site, (iTunes U), that that file format will ONLY run in the iTunes U app. on the iPad and Apple will then take a cut of the sales price; just like an App. Those files will play interactively on iPad ONLY. (You can't open a music file and play the music in Text Edit or Numbers)The new EULA says you are welcome to publish your Content, minus the Apple-only interactive portions, and distribute anywhere/anyway you wish.Pretty plain speak.

The new section, in it's entirety:

Quote:

B. Distribution of Works Generated Using the iBooks Author Software. As a condition of this License and provided you are in compliance with its terms, works generated using iBooks Author may be distributed as follows: (i) if the work is provided for free (at no charge), you may distribute it by any means;

(ii) if the work is provided for a fee (including as part of any subscription-based product or service) and includes files in the .ibooks format generated using iBooks Author, the work may only be distributed through Apple, and such distribution will be subject to a separate written agreement with Apple (or an Apple affiliate or subsidiary); provided, however, that this restriction will not apply to the content of the work when distributed in a form that does not include files in the .ibooks format generated using iBooks Author. You retain all your rights in the content of your works, and you may distribute such content by any means when it does not include files in the .ibooks format generated by iBooks Author.

Section (i) covers the case use I described. Users can acquire an .ibooks formatted file from anywhere (for free) and load into their iPad via iTunes (or Dropbox or other file management app), same as any other compatible ebook file.

charleski wrote:

spittingangels wrote:

Or, a more likely scenario, a university could mandate that students purchase the files via a university website run by the university bookstore to protect their cash cow and get around the iBookstore terms and conditions restricting cost and denying Apple their 30% cut.

Except that the only way to have the files protected by DRM and usable on an iPad is to go through Apple. (Unless you're suggesting that they'd develop their own, entirely independent, DRM system and somehow manage to get the reader app for it approved). I can't see any university selling electronic textbooks that aren't locked down.

The one thing Apple hasn't covered, is the very real possibility that someone will develop a .ibooks to epub3 converter that would let these works be used on a proper standards-compliant reader. Right now, the only one that claims ePub3-compliance is Azardi, but we should be seeing some pop up for Android in the near future.

I'm not sure why there's so much controversy. If you want a competing, open standard then develop one and make an iOS client for it. You can get Kindle and Nook clients on the App Store, in addition to Apple's iBook app. You can buy books from a variety of sources - you can't say that about the Kindle or Nook since both were also created to generate content sales for Amazon and B&N. Amazon is even signing authors and acting as publisher to get exclusive content.

I would imagine Apple doesn't want to be in the position of trying to develop clients for every platform out there. Or they would support the latest version of say Android, which users may or may not have access to. Perhaps they should have charged for the creator and stuck with a more open format, but that creates another barrier for ordinary people who may want to use the software.

If you think there's a more profitable or better business model, then compete.

@madogu right on thanks! I understand both sides of the coin, where apple is making this incredible piece of software available for free, but in turn destroying the epub3 standard. A composer has a a choice to make a deal with the devil and create an awesome ebook with iBook Author, but you give apple 30% (or whatever the specifics are on that) and you relinquish all control to Apple or you have a shitty epub3 ebook and give them nothing. Decisions decisions

I wrote a textbook (with a co-author) and receive only 5% in royalties. I'll gladly take 70% of the sales price and give Apple the other 30%.

Who cares about epub??? Seriously, we all know the iBooks DRM is going to be defeated almost immediately. Piracy of these textbooks will become the norm as well. The publishing industry must be aware of this, or somehow Apple has convinced them this won't happen. What's cool is this piracy will enable poor people in developing countries to use up to date textbooks.

In the end the textbook industry will find itself in the *exact same situation* as the music industry with iTunes, and it's entirely possible Apple will open up the format in the long-term future if this business takes off.

Still, it's shocking that Apple got the publishers to agree. If I was a dinosaur executive I would never allow my textbooks to be published in any digital format, knowing that it's impossible to make uncrackable DRM. But maybe those dinosaurs are just too ignorant to realize what's about to happen.

@madogu right on thanks! I understand both sides of the coin, where apple is making this incredible piece of software available for free, but in turn destroying the epub3 standard. A composer has a a choice to make a deal with the devil and create an awesome ebook with iBook Author, but you give apple 30% (or whatever the specifics are on that) and you relinquish all control to Apple or you have a shitty epub3 ebook and give them nothing. Decisions decisions

What's "shitty" about ePub 3? It enables, AFAICT, all the functionality that Apple's proprietary extensions enable, but in an extensible, standards-based format.

DRM?

No open standard will ever be "the standard" until either of two things:

- a corresponding DRM standard become "the standard"- everybody agrees to just publish their stuff with no DRM

Considering the companies involved and $ were talking about, neither one seems likely. I could be wrong though. Look at DRM-free music sales…

I'm glad Apple has 'clarified' this, but I still don't like it (EULAs making claims over data files generated by a program are problematic). Furthermore, I still don't think they've really thought it through (i.e. it still isn't really clear to me exactly what I'd be agreeing to if I agreed to this, and I'm not sure it is clear to them either). The broad outline is clear, but once you get anywhere near an edge case it becomes very fuzzy.

Specifically, what is the 'iBooks format'? How does this 'format' differ from 'content'?

Wow, Apple clarified it, and people are still tying themselves up in knots trying to come up with some interpretation under which Apple is trying to assert control over their content.

If you interpret "content" as "text" then I agree that Apple isn't trying to assert control over your text. If you interpret "content" as "text and layout", then yes, they still appear to be asserting some control, specifically over the layout. The word "content" has fuzzy edges.

trrll wrote:

Why would you want to give something the ".ibook" extension if it is not an iBook? Just to provoke Apple in some way?

Because you were interesting in thinking about all the permutations to see if there were any other holes in their logic. I agree that the easy case is easy. I don't think the edge cases are easy. Thinking about possible edge cases is a good way to understand what's going on. BTW, I don't think Apple has any issue with epub to ibook converters; they're good for Apple. But we can explore the definition of 'content' regardless of Apple's commercial desires.

trrll wrote:

If something has the .epub suffix and runs in standard ebook readers, Apple won't care what you do with it.If you hack or clone iBook Author to output a file that internally uses Apple's proprietary iBook features and then try to sell the product somewhere else, you'll likely be hearing from Apple's lawyers, no matter what the suffix is.

Which of those categories does charleski's comment fall under:

charleski wrote:

The one thing Apple hasn't covered, is the very real possibility that someone will develop a .ibooks to epub3 converter that would let these works be used on a proper standards-compliant reader. Right now, the only one that claims ePub3-compliance is Azardi, but we should be seeing some pop up for Android in the near future.

@madogu right on thanks! I understand both sides of the coin, where apple is making this incredible piece of software available for free, but in turn destroying the epub3 standard. A composer has a a choice to make a deal with the devil and create an awesome ebook with iBook Author, but you give apple 30% (or whatever the specifics are on that) and you relinquish all control to Apple or you have a shitty epub3 ebook and give them nothing. Decisions decisions

What's "shitty" about ePub 3? It enables, AFAICT, all the functionality that Apple's proprietary extensions enable, but in an extensible, standards-based format.

Are you kidding?Apple wants their exyension, under their control; both from an approval perspective and sell point perpective. This locks the author into a single sell point unless they wish to rewrite the book. If you have ever had to reformat a book, you know it is very close to writing another book.

This latest "update" from Apple is little more than lipstick on a pig.

Ambiguous language or not, the courts would have never allowed Apple to effectively acquire a copyright through a mere software license. They'd have examined the license, noted that it contains none of the provisions common to copyright agreements such as payments and terms, and voided that claim--assuming Apple intended that outcome, which I assure you it didn't. Apple isn't after copyrights. It's after something far more lucrative.

Those who claim this adjustment as a victory for authors are blind to Apple's still evolving business model. Its goal is to set up software/hardware/online gateways between content creators (authors, musicians, app developers etc.) and the public, making them as tight as possible and assessing a 30% fee on all retail transactions between the two, irrespective of Apple's own cost for managing the transaction, which I assure you is far less than 30%.

* The iTunes Store was their first move, although it's a permeable one. CDs can bypass it, as can online stores such as Amazon who forgo DRM. Apple was still learning.

* Selling apps for iOS devices is the most successful illustration of Apple's gatekeeping model. To install apps without paying Apple 30% of retail, users must take the radical move of jail-breaking their iPhone. Most won't do that. There, Apple's control is almost total.

* Because there's a long history of distributing apps independent of Apple, the App Store for OS X can't be as restrictive as that for iOS. At best, Apple can only limit access to special features such as iCloud to App Store apps. Over time, Apple may attempt to extend its gatekeeping role.

* There is also Apple's seemingly strange and counterproductive attempt to access a 30% fee on all in-app purchases, a term that actually applies to simple in-app links. It's a measure of just how committed Apple is to its gateway business model that it was willing to keep this scheme in place even when almost no company signed up for it. Apple would rather make nothing that abandon its standard 30% gatekeeper tax. Judging by a few stray remarks that have leaked out, Apple's lawyers seem to regard this policy as establishing a precedence for their other and more successful moves.

* The iBooks Author is the latest move in this plan. What matters aren't the misunderstood terms. What matters are two facts.

1. Apple has not released the specs for Multi-touch, their name for this EPUB-derived format that IBooks Author creates for iPad books. That means that it would be difficult or impossible for anyone else to create a competing authoring app that would allow authors to bypass Apple's restrictions on commercial use and thus allow authors to bypass the iBookstore. And if someone tries to do this via reverse engineering, Apple will can change their specs.

2. Keep in mind the other problem that Apple's gatekeeping faces. An iPad is porous enough that an author could create an ebook with iBooks Author and sell it at other online store, pocketing the 30% fees that Apple would otherwise get. All he'd have to give up is DRM. Apple's ban on the commercials sale of any ebook created by iBooks Author through any channel but the iBookstore blocks that gateway bypass. The exception for free books doesn't matter because Apple doesn't care about controlling content. It simply wants to collect its 30% gateway tax on everything that creators are selling consumers. Since content creators are often getting only 5-10% of retail, Apple's grab for 30% is sheer, unmitigated greed. It is 6 to 10 times as much as the creator often gets, and Apple is doing essentially nothing.

In short, to understand Apple's schemes, always look for where and how they are establishing their restrictive gateways. iBooks Author is Apple's restrictive gateway for ebooks on an iPad. Not opening up the spec prevents any other app from bypassing their gateway. Banning any other use of the books IBA creates blocks the other bypass. That's what they're doing.

******Now a bit of history. You've probably heard the expression Robber Baron applied to the giant monopolists of the late 19th century such as Rockefeller (oil) and Carnegie (steel). That's true, but its original meaning applied to literal 'barons' in the Middle Ages who set up castles along rivers and trading routes, assessing a tax on all goods that passed by them.

Apple's business model is to become the Robber Baron of digital content. Goods attempting to move from content creators to content consumers will be forced to pass through its gateways where a 30% tax will be assessed. There's only one difference. The earlier Robber Barons used soldiers, while Apple intends to use lawyers for much the same purpose.

Understand that and you understand Apple. Fail to understand that and much of their behavior becomes erratic and incomprehensible. Put in terms of the company logo, Apple wants to take a bite out of every content creator's income, whether they be an author, a developer, or a musician.

Actually, thinking about this a little more there are two things Apple could be trying to achieve (or some combination):

i) They want recompense for the cost of making iBooks Author. They want to encumber any generated works so that they get money from them. They'll let free works be free, but for any non-free works they want their cut - which they'll get through the Apple Store. In particular, with this motivation Apple would not want someone converting an iBook to an equivalent epub3 book and selling it on the Google bookstore - they'd be losing money. However, with this motivation, Apple would have no objection to an epub3 to ibook converter because it would make more content available for the Apple store.

ii) Apple wants to make sure that there is no secondary market for iBooks. (e.g. the Amazon market for Android apps is a secondary market after the Google App store.) By releasing a free 'iBooks Author', but then requiring that books generated cannot be sold on someone else's market, they make it hard for other people from setting up secondary markets - a chunk of the available content will not be available on that secondary market. With this motivation, Apple would not care if someone made an iBook to epub3 converter. The resulting epub book could not be used to set up a store to directly compete with the Apple store. But they might be more worried about an epub to iBook converter as that could be used to make a competing store. Of course, such converters might be necessary for Apple to get content for their own store, so Apple can't fight them too hard.

In the case of i), there are real concerns about the definition of 'content' and how hard Apple will chase the money. In the case of ii) the definition of 'content' is less important.

In short, to understand Apple's schemes, always look for where and how they are establishing their restrictive gateways. iBooks Author is Apple's restrictive gateway for ebooks on an iPad. Not opening up the spec prevents any other app from bypassing their gateway. Banning any other use of the books IBA creates blocks the other bypass. That's what they're doing.

But he's got his own political reason for asserting that. He want things to be done on a way that benefits him.

Apple is the first large company with a good distributation model that has bothered to see this through, which is why all the major text publishers have come on board. It's interesting that all the complaints about this aren't book publishers.

Standards-compliance benefits everybody. It even benefits companies (like Apple) that are obsessed with locking content into their own ecosystem, as long as they can see past short-term market-share.

Yes, Apple are trying to jump into the market before Amazon gets its act together with its own next-generation incompatible interactive ebook format on the Fire. But the history of ebooks is littered with similar attempts to corner the market that failed. Apple had a chance to do things properly, and to set an example for the rest of the industry, but instead they decided to wander off into a dead-end, and that's a real shame.

Understand that and you understand Apple. Fail to understand that and much of their behavior becomes erratic and incomprehensible. Put in terms of the company logo, Apple wants to take a bite out of every content creator's income, whether they be an author, a developer, or a musician.